Theses
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14194/2579
Browse
Search Results
Item The Human Conscience: Divine Design or the Nature of Our Neurons?(South African Theological Seminary, 2015) St. Onge, Charles; Pretorius, MarkChristians through the centuries have long turned to Romans 2:14-16 to show that the human conscience is a sign of the restraints God has placed on sin within all fallen human beings. The universal presence of the human conscience is put forward by many apologists as evidence for the existence of a creator God. In recent decades, however, some scientists have proposed naturalistic causes for the existence of a common human morality. This has been put forward as evidence against the existence of a supreme deity or deities. There is no reason to suppose that the human inclination to do good and avoid evil is anything other than a survival mechanism, the result of millions of years of evolutionary processes. To suggest that the source of the 'law within our hearts' is a supreme law giver is repugnant to new atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Are these neurological explanations sufficient to explain the existence of the human moral compass apart from a moral law-giver who exists outside of creation? Is this evidence open to other possible interpretations? Might the interpretation of the data or even the data itself be flawed? How might Christians, with their centuries-long Scriptural understanding of human conscience, respond apologetically to the claim that human conscience can be explained neurologically as a result of the brain's Neodarwinian evolutionary development? This is the main problem to be addressed in the following work. The main research problem can be subdivided into the following research questions which, taken together, should answer the main problem. Each of these sub-problems will be addressed using a chronological framework. Consideration will be given to how these sub-problems were answered in the past, the current state of thinking, and the paths which future research seems likely to take. The first set of sub-problems has to do with the Christian theological understanding of conscience and natural law. First, consideration will be given to the Romans 2:14-16 passage, a key portion of Scripture dealing with the question of the human conscience, where it comes from and how it functions. Second, how has Christian thought through the centuries regarded the origin and operation of the human conscience? The answer to this question will be limited in scope, but will touch on the major themes on the subject of natural law and conscience in historical Christian tradition and in the major confessional systems of thought present today. This would include, especially, natural law and conscience in the early church writers, as well as in the Thomistic, Lutheran and Calvinist traditions. The roots of Christian’s ideas of conscience in earlier Greek and Roman thought will also be considered. The second set of questions has to do with the current neurological explanations for the human conscience. First, what are the basic assumptions of the Darwinian and now Neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, especially as those assumptions relate to the development and function of the human mind? As in the examination of the development of Christian thought on the question of conscience, the scope of work on this question will be limited to the general themes necessary for this mini-thesis. Second, what specific explanations have been proposed, and are currently being proposed, for the human conscience based on these Neo-Darwinian assumptions? The last set of questions has to do with analysing and synthesizing the data gathered in answer to the previous questions in order to address the main thesis problem. First, what are the foremost apologetic concerns to be addressed when considering the Christian theological view on the origin of conscience in light of the Neo-Darwinian proposals for the emergence of the human moral compass? Each perspective will be evaluated and critiqued. Second, are there areas where both the Christian and Neo-Darwinian ideas show convergence and others where they show divergence? Third, considering the questions of foremost apologetic concern, and any convergence or divergence of ideas, what might be the most appropriate Christian apologetic response?Item Beyond the Conflict: Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 in the Perspective of Science and Biblical Theology(South African Theological Seminary South Africa) Ravi, Prashant Kesava; Pretorius, MarkThe conflict between creation and evolution has long dominated discussions surrounding the first two chapters of Genesis in the Old Testament. In efforts to ameliorate the conflict various creationist theories have emerged that attempt to relate Genesis 1 and 2 to the broader consensus of science. Some views have been adversarial in nature while others have attempted to reconcile Biblical interpretation with scientific theory. Even while different schools of creationist thought have developed, however, parallel developments in the discipline of Biblical theology have emerged. These developments have sought not, primarily, to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in the light of emerging scientific discovery and theory but, instead, within the broader context of Old Testament theology. In recent years the two schools of thought—creationist theory and Biblical theology—have started to converge in ways that show some promise for moving beyond the debate between creation and evolution that has typically overshadowed the broader theological importance of Genesis 1 and 2 for the Christian faith. This study examines some of these developments in Biblical theology and envisions how removing the “versus” between science and theology can hold new promise for Christians to engage the world today.Item Debating Scientific Origins: Can Intelligent Design be Supportively Involved in Natural Science Debates on the Origin of Life?(South African Theological Seminary Johannesburg, South Africa) Williams, Michael Scott Farr; Pretorius, Mark; Pretorius, MarkThis study endeavors to understand the writings of Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott in terms of their objections to Intelligent Design being involved in the Natural Science Debates on the Origin of Life. These writings include Ken Miller’s books Finding Darwin's God-A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution and Only a Theory-Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul. These writings also include Eugenie Scott’s books Not in Our Classrooms-Why Intelligent Design is wrong for Our Classrooms and Evolution vs. Creationism -An Introduction.Further, this study identifies the objections these two authors have with Intelligent Design and looks for possible solutions from the Intelligent Design Movement. The idea is that advocates of both sides are quick to judge and slow to listen. This study is not to convince one side or the other, but to simply listen to the objections and possible answers from both sides. In this way a bridge can be made between the two sides and these divergent groups can begin to understand one another.The objections that were raised by Miller and Scott include Miller’s objections to the age of the earth, limitations on evolution’s mechanism of natural selection, family trees in animals, Aristotle’s idea of four distinct kinds of causes and finally design imperfections. This study also brought out ID’s connection with creationism and its contention with mainstream science.ID advocates answer these objections by saying that Intelligent Design (hereafter designated as ID)is not necessarily connected with a literal Genesis or a young-earth position. They do contend that the scientific community and its reliance on naturalism is a stumbling block for the Intelligent Design Movement. The study also explores the nature of a designer and how this affects the acceptance of intelligent design. The study then moves to the proper use of science as expressed in the scientific method and how the concept of a designer could hinder the acceptance of intelligent designItem Religious Pluralism: Possibility and Limitations of a Dialogue Respectful of Biblical christian Identity(South African Theological Seminary Johannesburg, South Africa) N'diaye, Mamadou; Domeris, William R.; Domeris, William R.SUMMARY: In the dawn of the twenty century, voices raised to call Christianity to reconsider its relation to non-Christian traditions in a world that was turning unavoidably global and pluralistic. Globalization has affected all spheres of human society, and has been affecting the debates over the relation of Christianity to non-Christian religions overall after World War II. The pressures it has created in our contemporary socio-realities urged a rethinking of Christian relation to non-Christian traditions. Under such pressures, dialogue emerged as a new paradigm which since the missionary gathering in Tambaram has become a leitmotiv. In the debate over religious pluralism, two new approaches have made their ways distancing themselves from traditional Christianity labeled Exclusivism. They are self-qualified as inclusivism and pluralism. Karl Rahner‟s anonymous Christianity was the first inclusivist model that took the lead to become after Vatican II the basic model other inclusivists have used. With his so-called Copernican model, John Hick has become the leading figure of a pluralist approaches to religious pluralism. This study set to consider the dialogical approach of pluralists and inclusivists with regards to biblical Christian identity. It aims at giving an understanding of the roots of the challenge and its implications for biblical Christian identity, at questioning the appropriateness of these new dialogical approaches for biblical Christian identity and at examining the possibility and limitations of dialogue from a fair and biblical New Testament perspective. While a dialogical approachto non-Christian traditions is appealing, this thesis contends that to be appropriate a Christian model must preserve the integrity of biblical Christian identity as given by the New Testament. To be fair, it must secure also parity in true respect of the integrity of all parts and avoid reducing religiousidentities through a cultural relativism. This thesis calls therefore for a Christian model grounded in a Trinitarian theology that leaves safe the the ocentrism and the christocentrism of the New Testament.